What if there was an actual income limit and other restrictions?

a reply to: deadlyhope

It's been done.

It's called communism.

I think that a politician making a law like that would be making more money than the law allows.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: SaturnFX

In our lifetimes something along these lines will become mandatory or else we wont survive as a species.

Technological upheaval beyond imagination is dead set to forever alter everything to do with everything we know.


Now this idea that only making beyond $10 million a year to be famous space pioneering innovators its kind of wacky.

Inventors merely trying to get rich are chumps, aren't real inventors anyways. Those would be schemers.

Inventors need investors
Investors are in it strictly for the $

Okay bro.

We can't even get people in the USA to work RIGHT NOW. Like 100 million don't work. And now you want to cap how much the people who are actually working can make? You are out of your mind insane.

I got a better idea.

How about the first 100k anyone makes is tax free, and only money after that can be taxed. Now that's what I'm talking about.

So what happens to patents and intellectual property rights?



ETA; besides what would money be worth if everyone is a millionaire?

originally posted by: deadlyhope

Would love intelligent discourse about this.

After three pages of replies, good luck with that!
2nd line

ganjoa

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: AkontaDarkpaw

I'm not suggesting caps like what you're describing at all. Maximum ratio isn't a cap on how much you can earn. It's more like mandated profit sharing within businesses.

Some places now have ratios of 300:1 or more which is just insane. Nobody says that all jobs are equal or deserve equal pay. But can you really honestly say that the guy at the top is worth 300 times the other people working in that business???

I mean if they are really that much less valuable then why are they even there??? If they are worthy of having a position in the company they should also make profits from the company as it increases or decreases in it's profits.

Is this going to apply to actors, entertainers and athletes? Book authors? Are you saying Lebron James can't make more than 300x's the popcorn vendor at a basketball game? Should Will Smith make 300x's more than the production intern on a movie set?

No one's income or wealth should be capped.... PERIOD. What should be capped is how much money grubbing governments are taking from people to redistribute to buy votes. I bust my ass to get to where I am at today, making a solid 1-2%er income. I'm about to start a business risking a significant portion of my savings and I ain't doing it so someone can tell me I can't make a lot of money. I am doing it to get filthy phreaking rich so my kids can have things and advantages I didn't have.

Call it greed or whatever, but IDGAF.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Then people would no longer be working. There would be no point. On principle alone I would cripple my business before I let the government take a single cent away to give to someone who did not earn it.

a reply to: Edumakated

Not at all. This wouldn't be applied to a lot of other professions. It wouldn't even be applicable to small businesses either because of their structure.

This is something that would basically apply to large corporate models and things like that. But even that would have a huge impact. Large corporations and multinationals have massive profits often times larger than many countries. Yet they get away with funneling that money out of the system or in to a very few people riding at the top.

So just applying it to some of the largest corps alone would still produce a major change. That shift of wealth would also have the effect of bringing smaller businesses more income as well as it basically forces that money into more hands where it will be spent and be part of the system again as currency flowing within in economy.

Especially in our system which is based on Democratic principles. A functioning Government using Democratic Policies falls apart when too much wealth is controlled and held by too few of it's people. Because Money is Power, Money is influence and the voice. So when it's concentrated in a few people, only they have a voice and only they matter. That isn't Democracy. Which is what we have now. Money buys Politicians and Laws. If only the .1% have it all then nobody but them matter and nobody but them have any power or a voice.

a reply to: mOjOm
That ratio thing you mentioned sounds like quite a swell idea. I would probably be more for that than capping personal annual income at $10,000,000 before tax penalties.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Edumakated

Not at all. This wouldn't be applied to a lot of other professions. It wouldn't even be applicable to small businesses either because of their structure.

This is something that would basically apply to large corporate models and things like that. But even that would have a huge impact. Large corporations and multinationals have massive profits often times larger than many countries. Yet they get away with funneling that money out of the system or in to a very few people riding at the top.

So just applying it to some of the largest corps alone would still produce a major change. That shift of wealth would also have the effect of bringing smaller businesses more income as well as it basically forces that money into more hands where it will be spent and be part of the system again as currency flowing within in economy.

Especially in our system which is based on Democratic principles. A functioning Government using Democratic Policies falls apart when too much wealth is controlled and held by too few of it's people. Because Money is Power, Money is influence and the voice. So when it's concentrated in a few people, only they have a voice and only they matter. That isn't Democracy. Which is what we have now. Money buys Politicians and Laws. If only the .1% have it all then nobody but them matter and nobody but them have any power or a voice.

Why is it evil that a CEO makes $10-$20 million/yr leading a global organization with 100,000 employees but it is ok for an actor to make $50 million? I don't get the selective outrage for obscene income. Kardashians can make $30 million/yr for getting skeeted on by rappers and athletes and no one complains. A guy who has spent 30 years at a company, been responsible for tens or hundreds of thousands of jobs, increasing shareholder value by billions and gets $10 million/yr and progressives go ape sh*t.

CEOS make a lot because the Board of Directors and shareholders believe they are worth it. These companies make billions because they are large global organizations. Most of that money is the shareholders - meaning YOU AND ME, pension funds, 401ks, institutional investors, little grandmas, etc. The CEOs aren't keeping the money. It is going to shareholders.

The issue is not how much money people make, but political corruption in the form of lobbying.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: mOjOm
That ratio thing you mentioned sounds like quite a swell idea. I would probably be more for that than capping personal annual income at $10,000,000 before tax penalties.

Caps on wealth, like actual caps at how much you can make would just not work. For one thing how would you ever decide how much??? Every industry is different plus prices are different everywhere too. A place in New York isn't the same as in middle America. Stuff like that.

A ratio is at least an independent way to do it. It allows for wealth and profit to increase as needed. Basically everything stays the same other than the fact that everyone within an organization improves their position as the organization improves. The top guy still makes the most and the bottom guy the least. But it's within a ratio where to top guy doesn't steal all the profit from those who helped earn it.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: mOjOm
That ratio thing you mentioned sounds like quite a swell idea. I would probably be more for that than capping personal annual income at $10,000,000 before tax penalties.

Caps on wealth, like actual caps at how much you can make would just not work. For one thing how would you ever decide how much??? Every industry is different plus prices are different everywhere too. A place in New York isn't the same as in middle America. Stuff like that.

A ratio is at least an independent way to do it. It allows for wealth and profit to increase as needed. Basically everything stays the same other than the fact that everyone within an organization improves their position as the organization improves. The top guy still makes the most and the bottom guy the least. But it's within a ratio where to top guy doesn't steal all the profit from those who helped earn it.

Why do you assume the top guy steals all the profit? People are paid what they are worth to the organization and based on the scarcity of their skill set and the revenue they potentially affect. I work in sales. I have co-workers who make about $1 million/yr. 100% commission. I also have some sales guys who barely make $35k/yr. The guys make $1 million/yr are totally independent from the guy making $35k. In addition, there are people who work in operations/back office who might make say $50k. Yes, many of those people are highly valued and we need them and their support. However, they value of their work is not more than the $50k the bring in. PERIOD.

The guys making $1 million make that because they bring in far in excess of $1 million to the business. The guy in ops making $50k is a cost center.

a reply to: Edumakated

CEO's make a lot because Board members choose their salaries based off them making those board members as much money as possible and exploiting those people working for them as much as possible.

Everyone within the company is doing their part in that company. If they aren't needed then they wouldn't be there. So when all other expenses are taken care including expanding the business and all that. You're profits made then pay everyone out. From the CEO on down the line the profit earned should be the profit shared. That's all this is.

The CEO isn't getting ripped off by getting the largest share of the profit. He's still getting the most. But having them get 500 times the lowest or sometimes the median earner is just insane.

You're also comparing apples and oranges here. Why kim Kardashian is making 30 mill. compared to some CEO isn't something you can compare. Their incomes have nothing similar in how they're made. This isn't something that tries to level all wealth across the board. That would be communism which this idea avoids. It's just one thing that would help adjust a system that has gone completely wrong. It's not something that you can apply to every aspect of life and everyone's wealth across the board.

There are many other side effects too that you're not seeing. Like the fact that when giant companies don't have that much wealth consolidated in just a few hands they also aren't likely to be paying out multi millions for BS like Kardashians through Advertising and other gimmicks. The fact that companies pay one athlete 500 million dollars to wear a shoe in a commercial while they exploit 100,000 employees working for minimum wage or less with no benefits is as bad as any other form of corruption. It's a business model which kills and destroys.

You should read those links and look at examples of where this kind of thing is working to get a better idea. I can't explain it all myself. I'm still learning about it too. But it is and does work.

a reply to: Edumakated

I don't think commission is included in this. This is more of a salary scale. You'd have to check to make sure but I don't think this would apply to commission work because that is based solely on each persons performance already.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Edumakated

I don't think commission is included in this. This is more of a salary scale. You'd have to check to make sure but I don't think this would apply to commission work because that is based solely on each persons performance already.

CEOs make most of their compensation from stock options i.e., performance.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: deadlyhope
Your talking cash only?? If thats the case the limit may as well not exist!
See this is what I mean by accurately describing the income cap. Many of the CEO's and directors on the boards are paid in stock incentives, which is valued as cash in net worth analysis. So are bullion holdings. They could still be billionaires simply by ownership in companies.

How do you define your company cap as well? Are we applying the same principal there as well?? Even so $1,000,000 is still waaay too low. How the hell are we going to produce Aircraft Carriers, Jets and cruise missiles for our defense with that kind of limit without making the state the primary owner of property and production?? Or satellites for telecom for that matter.

I am totally onboard, but there are sooooo many details to work out before we can look at one option or another as valid.

What if there was a second, higher cap for stocks, shares, & ownership on paper, to incentivize continuing success for the company? Say an additional $500,000?


Not directed at the above quote:
I don't see how anyone can competently argue we have the best possible system while 5 people own more wealth than 3.75 billion people (the poor half of Earth's population). Will this work? I have no idea. Is our current system working? Most definitely not.

originally posted by: nOraKat

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: deadlyhope
I am ok with a cap at $10,000,000 dollars for an individual, and $100,000,000 for a corporation before the tax penalty goes up.

The kicker is to cover all the loopholes though. If an individual knows his personal income is getting to that limit, whats to just stop him from lowering his salary and just funneling all the $$$ up to $100,000,000 into his company for which he is the treasurer ??

See, there is much mroe to consider than just simply saying "here is the cap, welcome to an age of enlightenment!" We would also have to brainstorm all the loopholes that would bypass the limit and figure out how to tie off the loose ends legally without being too Communist about it.

I think for personal income, $10,000,000 is a very reasonable annual maximum. If thats too low, just figure out how to funnel the rest through a company or charity you are still in control of.

I guess that would rule out buying a $10 million dollar house or apartment.

I think you may be like Dr Evil who wanted to extort the world for $1 million dollars like it was a lot of money. Some apartments in Manhattan go for $10 Million.

Most people I know take out a mortgage for that sort of thing. I'm pretty sure someone making a million a year could handle a 10 million 30 year mortgage, if they really wanted to. A lot of prices would probably go down though, because it will be too expensive for most to own a $10 million home AND 6 $5 million vacation properties.

originally posted by: anotheramethyst

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: deadlyhope
Your talking cash only?? If thats the case the limit may as well not exist!
See this is what I mean by accurately describing the income cap. Many of the CEO's and directors on the boards are paid in stock incentives, which is valued as cash in net worth analysis. So are bullion holdings. They could still be billionaires simply by ownership in companies.

How do you define your company cap as well? Are we applying the same principal there as well?? Even so $1,000,000 is still waaay too low. How the hell are we going to produce Aircraft Carriers, Jets and cruise missiles for our defense with that kind of limit without making the state the primary owner of property and production?? Or satellites for telecom for that matter.

I am totally onboard, but there are sooooo many details to work out before we can look at one option or another as valid.

What if there was a second, higher cap for stocks, shares, & ownership on paper, to incentivize continuing success for the company? Say an additional $500,000?


Not directed at the above quote:
I don't see how anyone can competently argue we have the best possible system while 5 people own more wealth than 3.75 billion people (the poor half of Earth's population). Will this work? I have no idea. Is our current system working? Most definitely not.

Because those 5 people have created more wealth and value far in excess of their net worth. For example, so what if Bill Gates is worth $75 billion? He has probably created a trillion dollars in wealth for others. How many employees does Microsoft current have? Currently 115,000. In other words, there are 115,000 people who owe their livelihood to Bill Gates. We haven't even gotten into all the ancillary businesses and jobs like advertising, manufacturing, legal, etc that have spawned from doing business with microsoft.

Microsoft is work about $620 billion... people's retirement, pensions, etc are all benefitting. How many millionaires has microsoft created? My wife has a decent amount of microsoft stock and I can tell you we are more than pleased with it's value and couldn't careless that Bill Gates is worth $75 billion.